situations. This group organized the “Human Security
Network” in 1999 and “International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)” in 2000.
time, the notion of “Responsibility to Protect,” which
showed one of the ways international society attempts
to guarantee freedom from fear. These two different
notions of human security have been addressed under
different names among scholars: “development human
security” is focused on both freedom from want and
freedom from fear, while “protective human security”
is focused on freedom from fear.18
These human security paradigms have existed
in tension with the “ASEAN Way.” During the early
1990s scholars in the region were rather skeptical
about promotion of human security in ASEAN. On
the other hand, the ASEAN Way has been challenged
by rapid globalization, as well as crises including the
human rights violations in East Timor in 19989,
which provoked a debate on necessity of “protective
human security.” ASEAN’s “Troika” system, based on a
constructive engagement policy, was expected to offer
Questions remain as
to how effective such an approach would be, judging
from the sensitivities about sovereignty prevailing
in the region.20 Differentiation of the concepts of
“protective human security” and “development human
security” then become useful. Due to the emergence
of crossborder
and regional issues such as HIVAIDS,
haze pollutions, SARS, and economic disparities among
the ASEAN member states, “development human
security” has come to be seen as applicable to the
region under the “ASEAN Way”. Acharya puts it in
unambiguous terms:
[T]he need to rethink noninterference
should
be seen not as an abstract moral concern with human
rights protection, but as a matter of ‘practical’ necessity
without which ASEAN cannot stay relevant and
address real world changes and challenges facing
human security.21